Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Federal Procedure - Venue - Right Of Alien Under Diversity Of Citizenship Clause Of 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (A), Richard M. Adams
Federal Procedure - Venue - Right Of Alien Under Diversity Of Citizenship Clause Of 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (A), Richard M. Adams
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff, a citizen of France and resident of New York City, sought a declaratory judgment and restraining order against several defendants residing in different states. On the theory that a suit involving a citizen of France and citizens of the United States constituted "diversity of citizenship" under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (a), and therefore could be brought where all of the plaintiffs or all of the defendants resided, the action was laid in the federal district court of New York where the plaintiff resided. Defendant moved for dismissal on the ground that this was "alienage," not "diversity of citizenship" as …
Federal Procedure-Venue-Waiver Of Title 28, United States Code, Section 1391(A), Under Nonresident Motorist Statutes, Nolan W. Carson S.Ed.
Federal Procedure-Venue-Waiver Of Title 28, United States Code, Section 1391(A), Under Nonresident Motorist Statutes, Nolan W. Carson S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
A Connecticut resident brought a suit based on diversity of citizenship in a United States district court in Massachusetts against an Ohio corporation, alleging a cause of action arising from an automobile collision upon a Massachusetts highway. Plaintiff secured personal jurisdiction over the defendant by serving process upon the Registrar of Motor Vehicles for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and by giving notice to defendant in accordance with the Massachusetts nonresident motorist statute. Upon defendant's motion, the action was dismissed for improper venue. Held, defendant is not a Massachusetts resident for purposes of federal venue as defined by Title 28, …
Federal Courts-Substitution Of Parties By Amendment Under The Federal Rules To Correct A Jurisdictional Defect, Rex Eames S.Ed.
Federal Courts-Substitution Of Parties By Amendment Under The Federal Rules To Correct A Jurisdictional Defect, Rex Eames S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
The plaintiffs, local officers of a union, sued to enjoin the national officers of the union from interfering with plaintiffs' union duties. Because the original complaint failed to show diversity of citizenship as a basis for federal jurisdiction, plaintiffs sought by amendment to substitute five nonresident members of the union as parties plaintiff and to change the action to a class suit. Held, the court had the power to permit such an amendment but, in the exercise of its discretion, it would not do so here. National Maritime Union of America v. Curran, (D.C. N.Y. 1949) 87 F. …
Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure-Statute Of Limitations Not Tolled By Filing Complaint Under Rule 3, Clinton R. Ashford S. Ed.
Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure-Statute Of Limitations Not Tolled By Filing Complaint Under Rule 3, Clinton R. Ashford S. Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff's cause of action arose out of a highway accident that occurred on October 1, 1943. Basing jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship, he brought suit in a United States District Court in Kansas. The complaint was filed on September 4, 1945, and defendant was served on December 28, 1945. In Kansas, the two-year statute of limitations applicable to such tort claims is tolled by service on the defendant, not by filing the complaint. Held, plaintiff is barred by the Kansas statute of limitations. Ragan v. Merchants Transfer & Warehouse Co., Inc., (U.S. 1949) 69 S.Ct. 1233.
Federal Courts-Rules Of Civil Procedure-Construction Of Rule 50 (B), Daniel W. Reddin, Ii
Federal Courts-Rules Of Civil Procedure-Construction Of Rule 50 (B), Daniel W. Reddin, Ii
Michigan Law Review
This action was brought in a South Carolina state court and removed to the federal district court on grounds of diversity of citizenship. After the evidence of both parties had been presented, the court denied defendant's motion for a directed verdict. Thereafter, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Although defendant filed a motion for a new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence which the court denied, he did not move to have the verdict and judgment set aside and to have judgment entered in his favor as he might have done under Rule 50 (b) of the …
Federal Practice - Decision Of Questions Preliminary To The Convening Of A Three-Judge Court
Federal Practice - Decision Of Questions Preliminary To The Convening Of A Three-Judge Court
Michigan Law Review
Before the district judge can convene a three-judge court, two preliminary questions must be decided. First, is the case within the jurisdiction of the federal courts? Second, is the case one to which the three-judge statute applies?
Process--Privilige Of Nonresident Attorney
Process--Privilige Of Nonresident Attorney
Michigan Law Review
The defendant, an attorney at law and resident of Minnesota, came into Wisconsin to take depositions to be used in suits pending in Minnesota. Upon arrival he and the witnesses were served with an injunction restraining the taking of the depositions. While awaiting a hearing upon the injunction, in which he intended to appear in his own behalf and as attorney for the witnesses, personal service of a Wisconsin summons in the instant action was made upon him, naming as defendants himself and the law firm of which he was a member. A motion to set aside the service of …